EXCHANGE CASE

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21227, 25 September 1940, Page 9

EXCHANGE CASE

TWO MEN CONVICTED DEALINGS WITHOUT PERMIT INNOCENCE NOT ACCEPTED (By Telegraph.—Press Association) WELLINGTON, Tuesday Holding that a breach of the Finance Emergency Regulations, 1940, had been committed, Mr A. M. Goulding, S.M., in a reserved judgment delivered in the Magistrate’s Court today, convicted two Wellington men, Robert lan Malcolm Sutherland, solicitor, and Norman John Suckling, manufacturer’s representative.

The defendants were jointly charged that, without lawful excuse and without a permit from the Minister of Finance, they made a payment in New Zealand in consideration for receiving a payment outside New Zealand. On this charge each defendant was fined £lO, with costs. The defendants were also jointly charged with being parties to a transaction involving the conversion of New Zealand money into sterling currency at a rate of exchange other than the current rate, and with dealing with money payable outside New Zealand as a consideration for receiving payment in New Zealand. On these charges they were convicted and ordered to pay costs. A further charge preferred against Suckling alone, of sending money out of New Zealand without the permission of the Minister of Finance, was dismissed. Knew the Regulations “ Suckling had not a permit, and could not be a party to any transaction which would ultimately end in his becoming possessed of money to send abroad,” said J;he magistrate. “ Suckling knew the regulations. He bought exchange and knew it became his property. Nor do I think Sutherland’s reliance on any assurance from a bank that the transactions were not a breach of regulations is of any avail. “ I think these men allowed themselves to be parties to a transaction which they, like Mr Micawber, hoped would turn out for the best. Their hopes have not been fulfilled, and the veil of innocence under which they now seek cover appears to have no more substance than that which covered the charming Mr Skimpole. As to the charge against Suckling alone of sending money out of New Zealand, I agree with counsel that the evidence does not go far enough to establish the charge laid. The prosecution does not press for heavy penalties. Nevertheless, the offences cannot be regarded lightly, and more than a nominal penalty must be imposed.”